CISG-online 6614

Jurisdiction USA

Tribunal U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

Date of the decision 08 November 2023

Case no./docket no. 4:23-cv-00116-TWP-KMB

Case name Pohle v. Biden et al.

Order Granting Motions to Dismiss, Denying Motion for Hearing and

Directing Entry of Final Judgment
This matter is before the Court on several pending motions. Pro se Plaintiff Daniel L. Pohle 1
(«Mr. Pohle») initiated this action in Jennings Superior Court on June 20, 2023, under
Cause Number 40D01-2306-MI-000036. On July 13, 2023, Defendants United States Supreme
Court and Joseph R. Biden removed the case to this Court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1442(a) and 1446. On July 20, 2023, Defendant Indiana Supreme Court filed a Motion to
Dismiss for failure to state a claim. On August 11, 2023, Defendants Joseph R. Biden and
United States Supreme Court filed their Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Mr. Pohle did not respond to either Motion, rather, on
August 23, 2023, he filed a Motion for Hearing on All Outstanding Motions. All pending
motions are now ripe for ruling. This Order denies Mr. Pohle’s request for hearing and grants
the motions to dismisses this action with prejudice.

I. Legal Standard

To survive a motion to dismiss: 2

[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Thus, a «plaintiff must do better than putting a few
words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has
happened to [him] that might be redressed by the law.» Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d
400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original).

Jurisdiction, by contrast, implicates the court’s authority to entertain the case at all. A 3
complaint that is frivolous or wholly insubstantial does not invoke the district court’s subject-
matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998); In re
African-American Slave Descendants Litig., 471 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2006). «A frivolous suit
does not engage the jurisdiction of the federal courts.» McCurdy v. Sheriff of Madison County,
128 F.3d 1144, 1145 (7th Cir. 1997).
 CISG-online 6614

II. Complaint

Mr. Pohle’s Complaint, entitled «Fraudulent Civil Conspiracy,» is essentially 4

incomprehensible. He seeks damages in the amount of «One Billion and One U.S. [ ] Dollars»
($1,000,000,001) for alleged financial harm because of the Defendants’ «‘Deliberate
Indifference’ to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of
Goods (CISG).» Mr. Pohle further appears to claim that the U.S. Supreme Court harmed him
by refusing to hear a previous appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court also harmed him through a
court ruling, and the United Nations somehow harmed him by listing the United States as a
contracting party to the CISG. Mr. Pohle alleges no facts of any kind.

III. Discussion

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss both set forth Mr. Pohle’s frivolous litigation history and 5
characterize this lawsuit as another attempt to collaterally attack a state court judgment
entered against him in 2016. The Defendants make several contentions in support of
dismissal, including failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, res judicata,
expiration of the statute of limitations, and various immunities enjoyed by the Defendants.
The Court need not wade into these arguments, however, because Mr. Pohle’s Complaint
does not even contain enough detail to suggest a claim of any kind against any defendant. It
is entirely devoid of facts and Mr. Pohle’s bare assertions that he was harmed do not rise to
the level of suggesting that something has happened to him that might be redressed by the
law.1 Swanson, 614 F.3d at 403. The Complaint, therefore, fails to state a claim on which relief
can be granted and must be dismissed in its entirety.

Ordinarily, the Court would give a plaintiff an opportunity to show cause why this action 6
should not be dismissed or to amend his Complaint. See Frey v. E.P.A., 270 F.3d 1129, 1132
(7th Cir. 2001). However, such an opportunity is not necessary where the amendment would
be «futile or otherwise unwarranted.» Barry Aviation Inc. v. Land O’Lakes Mun. Airport
Comm’n, 377 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2004). As discussed below, Mr. Pohle’s litigation history
suggests that he has no interest in advancing legitimate claims, based on his history of
frivolous litigation. Amendment thus would be futile and leave to do so would be entirely
unwarranted. Therefore, this dismissal shall be with prejudice.

IV. Plaintiff’s Frivolous Litigation

As Defendants point out, Mr. Pohle has a long history of frivolous litigation. He brings his 7
actions in state court, but his federal defendants often remove the cases to this Court. To date,
there have been five such removed cases (including this one): Pohle et al. v. Mitchell et al.,

1
If Mr. Pohle had alleged facts the Court could understand to challenge a previous state court judgment, dismis-
sal might be proper under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because this Court would lack jurisdiction. See Pohle v.
Pence, No. 21-3351 (7th Cir. July 25, 2022). He has not done so. And the Complaint, while perhaps incoherent,
does not allege facts that are outlandish, nonsensical, or frivolous – it alleges no facts at all. Dismissal for failure
to state a claim is therefore proper. Regardless of the reason for dismissal, the Court finds that remand would
be futile. See Id.
2
 CISG-online 6614

4:17-cv-00078-TWP-DML (dismissed March 21, 2018); Pohle v. Roberts, et al., 4:19-cv-00264-

SEB-DML (dismissed May 13, 2020); Pohle v. Pence, 4:20-cv-00139-SEB-DML (dismissed
Feb. 22, 2021); Pohle v. United States Supreme Court, et al., 4:23-cv-00138-TWP-KMB
(removed Aug. 17, 2023). This Court has warned Mr. Pohle at least twice that frivolous filings
in this Court may result in sanctions. See Pohle v. Roberts, et al., 4:19-cv-00264-SEB-DML (Nov.
19, 2020); Pohle v. Pence, 4:20-cv-00139-SEB-DML (Dec. 8, 2021). And the Seventh Circuit has
found his filings «nonsensical and frivolous.» See Pohle v. Pence, No. 21-3351 (7th Cir. July 25,
2022). No sanction is issued today, but Mr. Pohle is again warned that Continuing this course
of conduct may subject him to sanctions, including a restriction on his ability to file papers in
this Court. Frivolous filing behavior cannot be tolerated, and «the judicial authority to curb it
is ample.» Support Sys. Int’l v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995) (collecting cases). See
also O’Quinn v. Gaetz, No. 3:13-CV-1342-JPG-PMF, 2014 WL 6455993, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 24,
2014) («When a litigant wastes judicial resources and burdens the Clerk’s office with motions
and pleadings that are often denied or dismissed, the Court has authority to impose
appropriate restrictions on additional litigation.»).

V. Conclusion

For the reasons explained above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Dkt. [8] 8
and Dkt. [11] and DISMISSES this case, in its entirety and as to all Defendants, with prejudice.
Plaintiff’s Motion On (sic) for a Hearing On: All Outstanding Motions, Dkt. [13] is DENIED as
moot.

Judgment consistent with this Order shall now issue.

SO ORDERED.